Le jeudi 06 décembre 2007 à 08:21 +0100, Frank Barknecht a écrit :
Hallo, Mathieu Bouchard hat gesagt: // Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Chris McCormick wrote:
I think the key point to take from the whole discussion is that Max/MSP users have a choice, whilst under Pd we have no choice. It's all very well justifying how great it is to not have patch chords, but the lack of that feature/bug definately annoys some [potential] users and puts them off Pd. If the people want it, why not give it to them?
Because it's easier to write a condescending justification for the lack of segmented patchcords than to write the code for segmented patchcords.
That's exactly the point: From this thread it seems that many of those people who would be able to implement segmented patchcords aren't interested in that feature. (You'd be one of the exceptions.) So until someone comes along who wants seg-cords in Pd and at the same time could write the code, the feature stays missing. That's not unusual wiht open source software: features, the developers need, get implemented faster, others maybe never.
I am a PRO seg-cords as well although I dont miss it since [s/r $0-dingsbums] made my life easier.
Moreover, the code has already been desired and written, "just" not been implemented in vanilla.
Seg-cords + colored box/inlets + pdmtl +pdpedia give the opportunity to really expand the Pd user community, not only the Pd developers side. It took me a while to abandon (definetely I hope, unless the European Community cant resist the lobbying and forbids FLOSS) both traditional sequencers such as Logic (thanks to Pd) and OSes such as OSX (thanks to GNU/Linux), which i did mostly under political reasons (Fight the power :-). Still it would be great that people get _attracted_ to Pd for both its vast possibilities AND usability (including documentation), both low and high level programming prospects.
Cheers! OH